This report provides a preliminary business case for the Experimental Testbed Courtroom. (For the purposes of this document, we will refer to this project as the Courtroom Design and Research Center (CDRC)). All new federal courts projects and most state projects employ a full-scale mockup to illustrate and test the layout of courtrooms. These mockups range from rough simulations of major furniture elements to entire courtrooms complete with walls. The use of these mockups has resulted in considerable cost savings as a consequence of being able to detect problems early, before actual installation.

However, these mockups are limited. They are not reusable and they do not allow technology to be tested as part of testing the courtroom layout. This has resulted in some errors in specifying the technology or has required costly retrofits of courtrooms. The lessons learned from testing the mockups are not catalogued and need to be re-established for each project. The purpose of this planning process is to explore the feasibility and desirability of constructing a centralized design support, education and research facility.

The team has focused on several questions:

How does a centralized facility compare with using onsite mockups or of other ways of supporting participation in planning and design, such as visits to other existing courthouses?

What other important roles might a centralized facility support?

To explore these questions, the team interviewed architects, judges, government staff, manufacturers of modular building systems, scenery designers and managers of mock court facilities in law firms. We also visited Courtroom 21, a "Courtroom of the Future" in Williamsburg, Virginia. In addition, the team analyzed recent courtrooms to understand the variability in dimension, layout and electronics that need to be supported.
Add comments here:

does anyone know of a courtroom set up for a judge to remain standing instead of sitting all day
the layout of a courtroom that indicates the roles of the people involved

A centralized facility has several advantages over using specially-built mockups onsite at individual building projects:

It allows the development and dissemination of knowledge accumulated from ongoing research and design efforts, ranging from technology integration, ergonomics and handicapped access to questions about appropriate designs for alternative dispute resolution, "jumbo" courtrooms and other social, cultural and technical issues;

It allows mockup materials to be reused economically;

Because of the availability of a kit-of-parts and shop facilities, a centralized facility allows mockups to be created that are more realistic than most field-built mockups;

It allows for demonstration and testing of courtroom technologies as they operate within alternative realistic schemes of lighting and acoustics;

It allows development of education and training programs about courtroom and courthouse design, including the integration of technology.

A centralized facility has the disadvantage that is does not allow the ongoing day-to-day participation by court staff that can occur with an onsite mockup. However, this may be partially mitigated by providing access to the facility via video conference or over the Internet. In addition, virtual reality technologies are rapidly becoming practical as ways of providing convincing simulated experience. "Virtual reality," or VR, is where a user experiences a computer-generated model of a setting and can manipulate or move through it. VR ranges from relatively simple computer models that a user can manipulate on a desktop computer, to more elaborate set-ups where a user dons a helmet and gloves and actually walks through simulated facilities. At the high-end, VR may be projected on an all surfaces of a "cave," providing a very convincing experience of reality.

A survey of the demands on courtroom mockups in terms of adaptability of shape, layout and scenery, and control of internal environment variables has shown that it is impractical to accommodate these needs in one single mock-up. The goals of creating a rapidly and easily changeable mockup are at odds with creating one that can be used for acoustics and lighting testing. In response, we are proposing several elements in the CDRC: hard-shell mockup courtrooms that can accommodate technology testing; rapid-prototyping courtrooms that allow rapid changes during testing; a technology demonstration and testing area; education and testing facilities that are accessible to the mockups and technology demonstration area; a computer cluster for courtroom automation instruction; a shop; an office area; and support facilities.
Add comments here:

This project arose out of extended discussions between Georgia Tech, the Georgia State University Law School, the Administrative Office of the Georgia Courts, the Administrative Office of the US Courts, the US General Services Administration and the Courthouse Management Group of the US General Services Administration and others. The intention is to create a centralized full-scale courtroom simulation facility that will:

Support the design of specific courts projects

;

Support R&D: testing, evaluation, research and development

of courtroom designs and courtroom computer models, including layouts, electronics as they are installed in specific designs, finishes, lighting, casework and other qualities;

Support training, demonstration and education

for design teams, judges and staff, lawyers and law students, architects and architecture students, professional school students and others.

As is shown in Figure 1, below, the project is focused on integrating design research, new technologies and education to produce courtrooms that are more efficient to design, have higher performance and where staff and design teams are better trained. At the core of this effort is a constant process of monitoring and research, where new trends are analyzed and new technologies and legal and social trends explored.

Figure 1: The CDRC links innovative design to research and training.

We address several questions in this report:

What are plausible specific scenarios of how the CDRC might be used to support these three basic functions? For example, who will use the facility, for what specific purposes and for how long?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of a centralized facility versus other current practices

How must the facility operate to support these scenarios, in terms of flexibility, durability, etc?

The research team views this project as an opportunity to support safer and more effective courtroom design. Many people find conventional plans difficult to visualize. The use of full-scale mockups and computer simulation will allow judges, staff, technology consultants, security staff and others provide more meaningful input during early project design, when changes are relatively easy to accommodate.

We also view the CDRC as a broader educational, service and research opportunity. Students, faculty and the private sector will explore the social, technical and historical issues surrounding a highly significant public building type. The CDRC will provide interesting projects for architecture, industrial design and law students. It will allow the research team to serve as a clearinghouse for research information and to conduct think-tank discussions about the future of courts and the future of public architecture. The CDRC will create a state-of-the-art simulation facility that will explore the relationship of full-scale simulation to computer technology. It will aid the development of next-generation computer models that will accurately support human experience through virtual and augmented reality yet will also provide the basis of integrated building models that can be used for design and facility management.

By focusing interest, resources and expertise, we see this as an opportunity to create several additional benefits:

CoOL Courts

(Collaborative Online Courts). This will be a website with several elements, including: regular discussions of a courts-related topic; an "ask-an-expert" area where interested parties can ask questions about programming, building and courtroom layout, security, mechanical components, furnishings, electronics and other issues; an archive of courts projects including cost and team information provided by RSMeans and case studies of courtroom plans; research clearinghouse; online product supply catalogue of courts-related materials and equipment. A further description is provided in Appendix B.

CAN (Courthouse After Next) Working Groups

. These will be focused think-tank discussions of emerging issues in courthouse design and technology. Depending on resources and interest, they might be conducted at a conference center or via videoconference, teleconference or the Internet. Results of the CAN Working Groups will be distributed on the CoOL Courts website and via conferences and magazines

Add comments here:
Good Job in a limited time. In India the courts will be different as there is no Jury system. We wonder if this could be included in your study. B. S. Patro & Prof. Mishra

Background
The CDRC is a simulation facility. The term "simulation" can be used for any experiment that is performed on a model (virtual or physical) of the real thing. The simulation model refers to both a set of physical (or virtual) objects and a set of humans that interact with these objects. Simulation may be used for either an existing or proposed courtroom, whenever the desired information or characteristic cannot be observed in the original, actual environment.

Computer simulation is not limited to providing the user a realistic experience of visiting the facility. A computer model potentially allows testing of lighting, acoustics, HVAC (Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning) and other qualities. The building industry is now developing integrated building models where a single computer model can be used for design, testing and construction. A single integrated building model can be developed by the designer and consultants, viewed by the clients, further tested by consultants, used by builders for construction and employed by facilities managers for maintenance. Researchers at Georgia Tech are leaders in developing integrated building models and the CDRC will be a center of this research.

Physical vs. virtual simulationTo date, very realistic simulation still requires the use of full-scale physical courtrooms or courtroom mockups. We expect that computer-generated virtual experiments with various forms of user interaction will gradually replace some aspects of physical mockups, and we intend to build and test various computer models for that purpose. They will be used both for virtual reality (VR) viewing and for development of integrated building models that form the basis to test lighting, acoustics, HVAC and other qualities without the necessity for actual physical experimentation. However, we expect that for the foreseeable future, the quality of virtual simulations will fall short of the demands of some of the stakeholders of courtroom experiments.

It is important to recognize that the courtroom simulator must offer a mix of virtual and physical simulation depending on type of scenario and client needs. Physical simulation will exclusively involve experiments conducted in full-scale mock-ups. Virtual experiments will be exclusively conducted through the manipulation of computer-stored representations of courtrooms.

The interface to physical simulations is offered by manually adjusting the mock-up parameters such as composition, size, materials etc. Experiments can be recorded and stored as video/audio recordings and data files.

The interface to virtual simulations can be a variety of human-computer interfaces, ranging from passively looking at rendered images (such as those produced by lighting simulation packages) to being actively immersed in a virtual reality (VR) using head-mounted displays. Intermediate forms such as desktop walk throughs and interactive IMAX theatre fly-throughs can be used as well. In many cases physical experimentation will be augmented by virtual simulation technologies, e.g. by deploying classic simulation tools to fill in the blanks in areas where the physical simulation is inadequate.

Augmented Reality as Transition phase
Many people expect computer-generated virtual simulation to become the dominant mode in the future. This is one of the most important agenda items for the CDRC, including exploring the feasibility of incorporating Augmented Reality into the CDRC. Augmented Reality (AR) provides a possible transition between using physical full-scale models and computer-generated models. Users wear semi-transparent visors where computer-generated images are superimposed on the real setting. For example, a user might walk through a physical full-scale courtroom mockup, viewing and interacting with a computer-generated judgeís bench

The next report will more fully develop the relationships between physical full-scale models and computer simulations. We anticipate that computer simulations will replace most physical simulations over a 5 to 10 year period, with AR providing a critical transition path.
Add comments here:

We anticipate the CDRC will support three basic functions: it will support specific design projects; it will provide a venue and framework for research and development; and, it will support demonstration, training and education.

The CDRC can help orient a design team early in a design project, by helping a team understand courtroom and courthouse design issues and constraints.

An orientation session can be valuable in helping a design team early in the design process develop a common language and understanding. While such an orientation session can occur in any meeting facility, linking orientation to a hands-on mock-up facility has the advantage that the design team can try out different layouts and technologies.

Of course, the team may become oriented to key issues by visiting comparable completed courthouses. Site visits offer the potential advantage that design teams can see actual courtrooms in action and can speak to users of the courtrooms. Judges, in particular, find it useful to talk to other judges and senior staff. However, site visits have the disadvantage that the users of new facilities often have a vested interest in their settings and may not be analytic when discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the designs. Also, participants in site visits often become distracted by surface characteristics of the sites they are visiting, such as particularly striking aesthetics. A centralized facility may offer a more balanced and analytic perspective and might offer introduction to a range of the newest electronics and designs. However it does not fully supplant site visits. A centralized facility might offer a well-structured and well-illustrated educational program, similar to the jail-design Programming of New Institutions (PONI) program offered by National Institute of Corrections.Participants: Project design team members, including judges, staff members, architect, and consultants

Time frame: One-half to two-day visits

Use scenario: The team moving back and forth from a training room to the courtrooms and freestanding elements

Flexibility needs: Courtrooms could be set up in a standard manner, such a courtroom reflecting design guide standards, or could be set up as a possible alternative for a specific design project

Technical requirements: No special requirements; a well-equipped classroom
Add comments here:
I am with Trinidad and Tobago and was wondering if there will be a conference on court design in the near future.

The CDRC can provide a design charrette and "rapid prototyping" facility.

(A "charrette" is brief intensive planning design exercise.) Because of the cost of constructing an onsite mockup, most are developed later in the design process when a fairly complete design has been developed. These mockups are typically used for fine-tuning of casework. A centralized facility could also help examine issues of integrating technologies or other issues that might affect more fundamental decision about size or massing.

Several European cities and universities have created full-scale modeling facilities that are used for rapidly developing the initial designs of interiors. Users can build their own designs as they propose them and immediately see the impact of their decisions. If it is sufficiently flexible, with an easily modifiable kit of parts, the CDRC could conduct one-or-two-day design charrettes with designers, judges and courts staff.
Participants: Project design team members, including judges, staff members, architect, consultants, supported by CDRC staff to manipulate the mockup

Time frame: Approximately two-day visits

Use scenario: The team moving back and forth from a project room to the courtrooms and freestanding elements

Flexibility needs: The team should be able to mock up their design rapidly, even in rough form

Technical requirements: The team needs a kit of parts that they can manipulate with minimal support and limited training. The intermediate and final solutions need to be documented, probably on video and as plans.

The CDRC can provide consultation in the development of lighting, and possibly some acoustic qualities, especially as they relate to choice and placement of courtroom technology.

A centralized facility offers the opportunity to explore the relationships between technologies, lighting and furnishings for a specific design. Issues such as acoustics, glare and sightlines to projection screens or other technologies are difficult to work out using plans or onsite mockups. An onsite mockup can not easily be equipped with alternative lighting systems or alternative arrangements of monitors, screens, projection systems, microphone placement, etc. Courtroom 21 and other "courtrooms of the future" provide an opportunity to view some new evidence projection and teleconferencing technologies. However, these courtrooms are constrained by their existing settings and lack of flexibility.

It is unlikely that a centralized facility could provide an exact replica of a proposed courtroom, with complete final details, finishes, colors and furnishings. It appears more likely that a centralized mockup could provide a reasonable facsimile of the form of the courtroom with accurate furniture and technology placement and generally appropriate colors and finishes. The CDRC can also be used for more localized acoustic testing, such as microphone placement.Participants: The entire design team or a subset of it, such as a technology consultant working with an architect

Time frame: Approximately two-day visits

Use scenario: The designers try out alternative technology solutions with alternative lighting, seeing which produce glare or which allow use of both computers and paper

Flexibility needs: The basic courtroom layout would be provided in advance and mocked up;

Technical requirements: Most modern courtroom lighting uses a combination of uplights, downlights and task lighting. Lighting studies of the well or bench likely require a ceiling to be plausibly simulated; more extensive lighting studies of courtrooms will require colors, materials and finishes to be at least reasonably close to the proposed design. Studies of the acoustics of the courtroom will require an enclosure that is solid and complete and is similar in materials and finishes to the final courtroom.

Comments: Lighting studies require accurate representations of color and finishes. Acoustic studies require that the test facility be acoustically isolated and that finishes are similar to the final design. These requirements may call for a mockup that is difficult to rapidly alter.
Add comments here:
Most courtrooms are designed around the bench and how it appears to those in the courtroom. To accomodate modern presentation technology and methods, future courtrooms should be designed around a presentation focal point, around what the judge and jurors see, not how they are seen. That focal point would contain–within the judge and jurors' same field of vision–the lectern, display screen and jury box. Thsoe three elements would be grouped together. That also means the bench and jury box–to the greatest extent possible–need to be in the same plane, ie: on the same side of the room. (Would you design a home theare by first arranging furniture aroudn the room then adding various screens to accomodate the furniture layout?) Partly because of poor fucking courtroom design, LCD panels in jury boxes and electronic lecterns are quite popular. But there are vastly cheaper and simpler solutions once a design concept begins with what the judge and jurors see. lpacker@xmission.com

The CDRC appears less suited than onsite mockups for ongoing development and fine-tuning of ergonomics and casework for a specific design project

. Current onsite mockups are sometimes used to fine-tune casework such as bench design, and the relationship between the bench, clerkís workstation, witness stand and jury box. This might involve having multiple stakeholders try out the design. The design team can modify the design, usually by sawing and rebuilding the mockup. A centralized mock-up facility does not provide a good alternative for such ongoing fine-tuning because participants are unlikely to spend more than a day or two in such a facility. However, a centralized facility does offer the opportunity to develop prototype designs that are tuned to accommodate people of different statures, storage, computers, security, etc. These prototypes could then be adapted with different finishes and details to fit with a specific courtroom design and the tastes of the judges and designers. Some of the functions of an online mockup could be reproduced by allowing onsite staff to participate in exploring or changing the mockup via video conference or over the Internet.

Participants: Judges and courts staff working with designers

Time frame: Brief visits

Use scenario: Judges, staff and attorneys try out courtroom furniture, commenting on comfort, work flow and ergonomics

Flexibility needs: Ability to modify small details of the casework quickly

Technical requirements: The team needs a kit of parts that they can manipulate with minimal support and limited training. The intermediate and final solutions need to be documented, probably on video.

Comments: The CDRC could provide some of the benefits of an onsite mockup by providing video and computer access to the mockup.
Add comments here:

The CDRC can support development and testing of new technologies and of designs of new kinds of facilities, such as "jumbo" facilities for very large trials, alternative dispute resolution facilities, specialized courtrooms such as juvenile courts or drug courts, or other types of facilities for which there are not well-established designs.

Several of the people interviewed argued that while standard jury trial courtrooms are the most commonly produced state and federal facilities, other kinds of proceedings spaces are perhaps in greater need of exploration. However, it will take experimental participants longer times to get used to innovative facilities and be able to evaluate them, perhaps even days or weeks of ongoing interaction in a variety of conditions. This testing will also allow testing of subtle effects of new technologies and designs on the perceptions and behavior of the participants. For example, some settings have found that video testimony is seen as more natural if the monitor is placed in the witness stand. Also, there is a debate as to the relative impacts of individual monitors versus a single large monitor for the jury.
Participants: Sitting judges, mediators, mock trial teams from law schools, moot court teams

Time frame: Extended tests of days or weeks

Use scenario: Participants conduct structured mock trials or actual proceedings and are systematically debriefed afterward; this could be rigorous experiments with a control group or could be in the context of ongoing improvement and development

Flexibility needs: The layout would be established in advance; small changes in casework or technology might be performed during testing

Technical requirements: The proceedings would be recorded on video, though broadcast quality is not required

Comments: Depending on demand, the mockups might be configured in basic dimensions, such as a trial courtroom and a smaller alternative dispute resolution space.
Add comments here:

The CDRC can support development of prototype courtroom elements such as benches, and bench-witness stand-clerk modules.

As was mentioned above, a centralized facility can be used to further develop and test prototype courtroom elements. These tests may employ people with different statures and abilities, incorporating different technologies and using different work processes and legal procedures. Perhaps candidate excellent courtroom elements can identified from the bitch post-occupancy evaluations (POEs) conducted by the US General Services Administration, the Administrative Office of the US Courts and of state courts. These elements might be tested in several different contexts: evaluation of single elements, evaluation of clusters of elements in a simulated well, testing of elements in a full courtroom during a mock trial and field testing of elements in actual courtrooms.
Participants: Sitting judges, mediators, mock trial teams from law schools, moot court teams

Time frame: Extended tests of days or weeks

Use scenario: Tests might include standardized tasks or could include mock or actual trials.

Flexibility needs: The casework designs would be developed in advance; small changes in casework or technology might be performed during testing

Technical requirements: The proceedings would be recorded on video, though broadcast quality is not required

Comments: Initial tests need not occur in a complete mock courtroomóa partial well might be sufficient. Georgia Tech has a nationally-known Center for Rehabilitation Technology that can assist in exploring issues of accessibility.

The CDRC can provide training sessions focusing on courtroom and courthouse design and technology

. The CDRC offers the opportunity to provide instruction that is hands-on and is informed by ongoing research. Other instructors might be enlisted. For example, the National Institute of Justice PONI (Programming of New Institutions) program has been able to enlist instructors who are willing to participate with only modest remuneration.

Use scenario: The teams moving back and forth from a training room to the courtrooms and freestanding elements; the training session could be recorded or broadcast

Flexibility needs: Courtrooms could be set up in a standard manner, such a courtroom reflecting design guide standards, or could be set up as a possible alternative for a specific design project

Technical requirements: No special requirements; a well-equipped classroom. If sessions are recorded for broadcast the training rooms and courtrooms need studio lighting and acoustic isolation.

Comments: The National Center for State Courts runs sessions on courtroom technology but has shifted its focus away from design.
Add comments here:

The CDRC can provide opportunities for mock trials for judges, law students, high school students and other moot court participants

. The CDRC can provide a facility for participants to conduct trials that will incorporate the newest courtroom technologies and alternative spatial layouts. The participants will also serve as research subjects, providing structured feedback to the research team.

Participants: Sitting judges, mediators, mock trial teams from law schools, moot court teams from high schoolsTime frame: Extended tests of days or weeks

Use scenario: Tests might include standardized tasks or could include mock or actual trials. Initial tests need not occur in a complete mock courtroomóa partial well might be sufficient.

Flexibility needs: The casework designs would be developed in advance; small changes in casework or technology might be performed during testing

Technical requirements: The proceedings would be recorded on video. If broadcast quality is required, the courtrooms must be acoustically isolated and support studio lighting
Add comments here:

3.4 Summary
In sum, a centralized facility offers several advantages over existing practices:

It can conduct ongoing research in design and the interaction of design, technology and legal process, and use this research to support design and training; this provides the opportunity for environmental design to work hand-in-hand with technology, security, maintenance and other issues;

A centralized facility allows the materials costs involved with building onsite facilities to be reduced because materials can be reused;

It can demonstrate and test alternative electronics, lighting systems and other technologies;

It can provide education, training and orientation in a hands-on setting;

A centralized facility offers several disadvantages with respect to onsite mockups and site visits:

It does not support ongoing testing by larger groups of courts staff onsite;

While it provides interaction with an experienced research staff, it does not provide the interaction with peer judges or staff that can occur on site visits.

The key to adaptability is maximum "disintegration" of technologies in the experimental courtroom. This will be achieved by combining modular and open building technologies, flexible compartmentalized enclosure systems, elevated floors, suspended ceilings, AC and DC flexible wiring systems, wireless sensors, soft and hard infill systems, etc. Extra care will be taken to make each courtroom a self-contained unit that is minimally integrated with the building systems of the hosting facility.

We have had several discussions with Octanorm, USA; Octanorm is a manufacturer of high-end modular building systems. Octanorm has developed an extensive aluminum frame modular system that has been used for trade shows and other exhibits. It is promising as a direction for further development.

Environmental conditioning will require extra care:

Thermal environment

: the hosting facility will act as a climate zone buffer for the courtroom unit, i.e. no part of the unit will be in direct contact with the external environment. The building systems of the hosting facility will maintain a steady state. The only provision will be the supply of sufficient fresh air in the facility. The courtrooms will not be used for any energy/thermal/HVAC experiments

Lighting environment

: the ability to control and emulate any type of realistic lighting environment must be offered. There are no extreme technical barriers that have to be overcome, but great care has to be taken in providing the facilities to superimpose any lighting fixture grid and type on the enclosure system. Daylight penetration may have to be emulated by installing artificial windows in the enclosure.

Acoustic environment

: the ability to mimic certain acoustic characteristics of the space must be offered. The choice of this (minimal?) set of acoustic parameters is crucial, as it will constrain the set of potential technical solutions. Mimicking the true acoustic climate will pose extreme challenges and will most likely put severe limitations on the type of enclosure materials and structural integrity system, as well as on the sound production of all ëexperimentalí devices in the space.

Add comments here:

5. Programming
The functions of the CDRC will of course depend on demand and funding. However, there are several apparent conflicts to be resolved. The charrette scenarios call for rapid changing of the facility while the design team is present. This assumes standard kit of parts that are light and easy to handle. Testing of lighting and acoustics and longer term research call for more durable materials that simulate the final courtroom. This suggests several functions:

One or two hard-shell full-scale courtrooms mockups that allow for testing of lighting, acoustics and display technology in a facility that simulates the look and performance of a real courtroom.

One or two rapid-prototyping facilities that allow the design team to rapidly alter layouts and technologies;

Training area that allows several simultaneous activities such as design charrettes, training and research space;

Computer cluster for training of database and other functions.(requested by Georgia Courts)

7. MilestonesNote: the following schedule is dependent on State funding and on acquisition of a shell for the facility that requires only modest improvement.
March, 2000 Further development of the "business case" identifying users, more detailed scenarios of use and further specification of costs and income
Late March, 2000 Meeting of Advisory Panel
May, 2000 Development of detailed design brief for the facility
May, 2000 Identification of location (this is dependent on funding)
August 15, 2000 Conceptual design of the facility
Sept-Nov 2000 Design development and preparation of construction documents
Nov- June 2001 Contracting and construction

A: The Research TeamGeorgia Institute of TechnologyCraig Zimring is an environmental psychologist and associate professor of architecture and of psychologist. He has written extensively on post-occupancy evaluation (POE) and has worked with several large building delivery organizations help in the development of POE programs and online databases of evaluation information: the California Department of Corrections, Ministry of Education of France, Office of Foreign Buildings Operations of the US Department of State and others. He is responsible for overall project coordination and is the principal point of contact.Godfried Augenbroe is a civil engineer specializing in building performance studies, building systems engineering and computer Supported Collaborative Work (CSCW) environments for concurrent engineering by building teams and design by simulation strategies.
Sabir Khan isan architect and studio instructor. He has designed several courthouses and other justice facilities.
David Craig is a doctoral student in the College of Architecture at Georgia Tech. He holds an undergraduate degree in physics from Harvey Mudd College, a masters in physics from the University of Colorado and a masters in design from Georgia Tech.
Debajyoti Pati is a doctoral student in the College of Architecture at Georgia Tech. He holds an undergraduate degree in architecture from the University of Bombay and a masters degree in architecture from the University of British Columbia.

Georgia State UniversityMark Kadish is the director of the Lawyer Skills Training Program at the Georgia State University College of Law. An experienced litigator, he is member of the Bar in Georgia, New York and Massachusetts and has been admitted to the United States Supreme Court and 19 other federal courts.

Ball State UniversityMallika Bose is an architect, urban designer and architectural programmer who has conducted many studies of user-oriented architectural research. She has programmed several court facilities. She will be primarily responsible for developing the Courthouse After Next Working Groups.

B: The Collaborative Online Courts (CoOL Courts) Website
Peripheral to the CDRC will be a website maintained by faculty and students at Georgia Tech and contributed to by the larger courts research and design community. The site, currently labeled CoOL Courts (for Collaborative On-Line Courts), will post news related to courts research, design and construction on a regular basis. It will also include a monthly discussion forum, an ask-and-answer area, an up-to-date archive of current and upcoming courts projects around the country, a directory of courts research, a building products supply catalogue, and finally, an index of online and offline courts resources. The purpose of the website is to foster informal sharing between the diverse parties involved in courts design and research as well as to develop ideas that might be worthy of further research at the CDRC.

The monthly discussions will be led by a guest host and will cover topics of general interest to the extended courts community. It will serve both to draw the community together and to help incubate ideas for further research at the CDRC. Discussions will be initiated either via streaming video or text by the host, with subsequent contributions being submitted directly on the discussion page by others. Past discussions will archived on the site.

The ask-and-answer session will consist of threaded dialogs covering a wide array of issues, including programming, building and courtroom layout, security, mechanical components, furnishings, electronics and courts procedures. Anyone with a question related to one of these subtopics would be invited to post in the appropriate area. Those with the appropriate expertise would be automatically notified of the question via email and asked to explore possible answers back on the site.

The archive of courts projects will be divided into two parts, one devoted to project specifications and budget and one devoted to design drawings and images. The former will be supported by RS Means, while the latter will be supported and progressively updated by faculty and students at Georgia Tech. The archive will be searchable by project attributes and will be specially designed to foster comparison between projects.

The directory of courts research will highlight the activities of research teams across the country. Those visiting the site will be invited to contribute www addresses and short summaries of their research. Activities of the CDRC will also be posted in this section.

The building-product supply catalogue will serve architects and contractors currently involved in design projects. Emphasis will be placed on materials and equipment particularly suited to courts projects.

The index of courts resources will include up to date web, journal and book references, organized by topic.